2014 (1) TMI 782 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of Appeal Stay application rejected Held that - On perusal of order dated 30.7.2012 these citations were cited by the revenue to drive home their point that application for restoration of appeal should be dismissed - the decisions were distinguished by theBench in the order dated 30.7.2012 - the current appellant Shri Arvind Panchal and the appellant there Shri Mafatlal Harakchand Shah are similarly placed Thus the ratio of order dated 30.7.2012 will have more persuasive value final order dated 10.10.2011 is applicable to the current applicant Stay application restored Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit order, application filed after one year, applicability of limitation under Section 35B.

Analysis:
1. Non-compliance with Pre-deposit Order: The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order by the main assessee, M/s. Shital Tubes Pvt. Limited. The appellant, Shri Arvind Panchal, who was the Director of the main assessee, was not directed to deposit any amount of the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. The non-compliance led to the dismissal of all appeals.

2. Application for Restoration: The appellant filed an application for restoration of the appeal. The appellant's counsel highlighted a similar case where another Director, Shri Mafat Lal Harakchand Shah, had successfully restored the stay petition and appeal through a miscellaneous order. The appellant's counsel presented a copy of the said order for reference.

3. Limitation for Filing Appeal: The Superintendent (A.R.) argued that the restoration application was filed almost a year later, and the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 35B should apply. Citing precedent cases like Kirtikumar J. Shah and Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, the Superintendent emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period.

4. Judicial Precedent: The Tribunal reviewed its previous order dated 30.7.2012 regarding the restoration of appeal for Shri Mafatlal Harakchand Shah, who was also a Director of M/s. Shital Tubes Pvt. Limited. Despite the revenue's attempt to dismiss the restoration application based on previous decisions, the Tribunal distinguished those cases and found that the order dated 30.7.2012 set a persuasive precedent due to the similar circumstances of both appellants.

5. Decision and Order: Respectfully following the precedent set in the case of Shri Mafatlal Harakchand Shah, the Tribunal recalled the final order dated 10.10.2011 and restored the stay petition and appeal for the current appellant, Shri Arvind Panchal. The Registry was directed to list the appeal and stay petition promptly for further proceedings.